Assumed not absorbed? (CCC 470)

[mawst]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

IV. HOW IS THE SON OF GOD MAN?

470 Because “human nature was assumed, not absorbed”,97 in the mysterious union of the Incarnation, the Church was led over the course of centuries to confess the full reality of Christ’s human soul, with its operations of intellect and will, and of his human body. In parallel fashion, she had to recall on each occasion that Christ’s human nature belongs, as his own, to the divine person of the Son of God, who assumed it. Everything that Christ is and does in this nature derives from “one of the Trinity”. The Son of God therefore communicates to his humanity his own personal mode of existence in the Trinity. In his soul as in his body, Christ thus expresses humanly the divine ways of the Trinity:98

The Son of God. . . worked with human hands; he thought with a human mind. He acted with a human will, and with a human heart he loved. Born of the Virgin Mary, he has truly been made one of us, like to us in all things except sin.99

My question is this:

Is this a denial that Christ received anything of his human nature from Mary? If so, how is she rightly called “Mother of God”?

It is my understanding (though I submit to the correction of the Church) that the denial that Christ received anything of his human nature from Mary is anathema (though I fail to recall where it is pronounced).

Is the denial that Christ received anything of His Human Nature from Mary a heresy? And which heresy (name)?

I’ve looked briefly at Gnostic Docetism and Nestorianism, though I’m not sure which of these (if either) is more correctly applied to the concept here.

 

[JimG]

The Second Person of the the Trinity–a Divine person, not a human person, did assume a human nature. Yes, what he received physically of his human nature came from Mary, since he had no human father. The conception of Jesus in the womb of Mary was the place in which the Divine Word assumed a human nature, so that the Person who was born of her was a divine person, not a human person. Yet the human nature he assumed derived from her.

 

[DavidFilmer]

so that the Person who was born of her was a divine person, not a human person. Yet the human nature he assumed derived from her.

Oops, that sounds a lot like Docetism.

The Church teaches that Jesus was *fully *human and fully divine, in every respect.

 

[Vince1022]

Is this a denial that Christ received anything of his human nature from Mary?

No

 

[FCEGM]

Originally Posted by JimG
so that the Person who was born of her was a divine person, not a human person. Yet the human nature he assumed derived from her.

Yes. . .and He is One Divine Person (Jim wasn’t sounding like a Docetist); the Divine person assumed a fully human nature. The human nature did not a Person make.

 

[JimG]

Yes. . .and He is One Divine Person (Jim wasn’t sounding like a Docetist); the Divine person assumed a fully human nature. The human nature did not a Person make.

Yes, Jesus is one person with two natures. The Person is the second person of the Holy Trinity.

 

[mindlight]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

My question is this:

Is this a denial that Christ received anything of his human nature from Mary? If so, how is she rightly called “Mother of God”?

It is my understanding (though I submit to the correction of the Church) that the denial that Christ received anything of his human nature from Mary is anathema (though I fail to recall where it is pronounced).

Is the denial that Christ received anything of His Human Nature from Mary a heresy? And which heresy (name)?

I’ve looked briefly at Gnostic Docetism and Nestorianism, though I’m not sure which of these (if either) is more correctly applied to the concept here.

Did not Enoch or Elijah also get assumed into heaven having lived righteous lives? But noone suggests they had perfectly righteous ancestors and in Elijahs case maybe we can even talk about moments of unfaithfulness or unbelief. The bible says the soul that sins is the one that dies and also that righteusness is imputed by grace. Maybe Jesus had facial features that reminded others of his mother Mary , also that she was of the line of David (who did not live a sinless life) is also significant. But I do not understand why it is necessary to suggest that Mary led a perfect life and was assumed into heaven in order to establish the perfection of Christs own humanity. His humanity is his own and his moral decisions for obedience rather than rebellion as with Adam are what distinguish his humanity from our own with all their imperfections.

Indeed to argue that Jesus is fully God and fully man requires us to understand him as these things in his own right and not by way of analogy to or dependency on others.
Isaiah 53 v 2:

He sprouted up like a twig before God,
like a root out of parched soil;
he had no stately form or majesty that might catch our attention,
no special appearance that we should want to follow him.

While morally perfect his humanity had no specialness that drew our attention to it. Yet by his faithfulness to the cross we are redeemed.

 

[Vince1022]

Yes. . .and He is One Divine Person (Jim wasn’t sounding like a Docetist); the Divine person assumed a fully human nature. The human nature did not a Person make.

No, the Divine person did not simply assume a fully human nature. That would be Docetism.

 

[Matorin]

what is the Church’s standing on a pre-incarnate Christ in the book of Joshua?

 

[Vince1022]

what is the Church’s standing on a pre-incarnate Christ in the book of Joshua?

I don’t understand. Where is Christ referenced in the book of Joshua?

Or…what do you mean? Thanks.

 

[FCEGM]

No, the Divine person did not simply assume a fully human nature. That would be Docetism.

You may be confusing “assumed” as being synonymous with “seeming” (which would be Docetism). The Divine Person took flesh (assumed flesh) in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary, becoming truly Man while remaining truly God, but the Person of the Son did not become a Person - or another Person than the Divine One - through the Incarnation.

471 Apollinarius of Laodicaea asserted that in Christ the divine Word had replaced the soul or spirit. Against this error the Church confessed that the eternal Son also assumed a rational, human soul.

472 This human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with a true human knowledge. Catechism of the Catholic Church

 

[Vince1022]

You may be confusing “assumed” as being synonymous with “seeming” (which would be Docetism). The Divine Person took flesh (assumed flesh) in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary, becoming truly Man while remaining truly God, but the Person of the Son did not become a Person - or another Person than the Divine One - through the Incarnation.

Thanks. Appreciate it. I was concerned about “assumed” as that is so closely related to the literal Latin “doceo/docere/” Your post helped clarify. Again thanks.

 

[FCEGM]

Thanks. Appreciate it. I was concerned about “assumed” as that is so closely related to the literal Latin “doceo/docere/” Your post helped clarify. Again thanks.

How very gracious of you, Vince, and you’re very welcome.